FleaInNYCbanner.jpg

? Rockstar Propaganda | Main | Who is the hottest girl in gaming? ?

September 03, 2009

Hard liberals

In addition to a fair summary of British conservatism (to be found at the link), Peter Hitchens offers a few concise - and cutting - observations about a bit of the political spectrum I recognize. This by way of a rejoinder to a conversation with Mehdi Hasan about institutional bias at the BBC; Hasan labours under the impression the BBC is a right wing outfit. Bless.

I am excerpting a long quote for the benefit of Canadian Flea-readers. We too know peope who confuse conservatism with the Conservative party or, worse yet, confuse loyalty to party with loyalty to civilization (I would say "loyalty to country" but this is Canada I am talking about).

Mr Hasan seems to think that I have personally invented the conservatism I espouse, and it is a quirky, random collection of views which appear contradictory to him. Let me assure him that I am simply the inheritor and continuer of a tradition much older than I, which is only proper for a conservative. Mr Hasan also, for some reason inaccessible to me, thinks the Conservative Party embodies conservatism, thinks that conservatism consists of support for free markets, or for the Iraq war, or a general liking for the United States. In fact some of these positions are those of classical liberalism, while others are those of 'Neo-Conservatism', a tendency more attractive to disappointed Marxists, in search of a new Utopia, and to ultra-liberal globalists, than to conservatives. Many, if not all, neo-conservatives are cultural and moral and social radicals, and economic ultra-liberals. Some of these positions are common to both these views. None of them is conservative.

He is also, I think, confused by the fact that the BBC, which was generally sympathetic to the Blair government because of its cultural leftism, could never really cope with that government's globalist decision to go to war in Iraq. Sentimental Leftists, whose politics are really a series of displaced religious opinions, often misunderstand, and lag behind, the vanguard of their cause. Only the sharper and smarter ones, the 'hard liberals', recognise that their aims may be served by bombing a few cities. The Tory Party had a parallel problem. Having sold Britain to the EU and being secretly ashamed of it, it now strives to look ultra-patriotic on every possible occasion by banging the drum for war and supporting 'our boys', though it overcame this when we surrendered to the IRA in Northern Ireland, the last actual national conflict in which our armed forces were deployed in British, rather than globalist interests. The neo-conservative liberals, whose reasons for backing these wars are entirely different, thus have an easier time with their backbenchers than do Labour. Sentimental Tory MPs back wars they should oppose. Sentimental Labour MPs oppose wars they ought to support.

Not just bombing cities, either. We have a profound appreciation for marketing. Fair dues about the ex-Marxism, btw; though as part of a Lacanian psychoanalytic tendency I was too hip to have ever been considered reliable.

And we do have a new revolutionary Utopia. It is called the United States of America.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at September 3, 2009 08:33 AM